-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Review add more covariates #32
Merged
hansvancalster
merged 8 commits into
add_SWCvol_Cdensity_etc_to_model_observed_richness
from
review_add_more_covariates
Nov 28, 2024
Merged
Changes from 3 commits
Commits
Show all changes
8 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a9e7c78
rename variables
hansvancalster 9bcafe2
add missing library
hansvancalster f4fd889
add samples with total_count zero (no observed taxa)!
hansvancalster a3467ce
various improvements
hansvancalster e14963f
update version combined dataframe and metadata
hansvancalster 4352f60
split plot by diepte
hansvancalster 3a16ab4
improve selection of family
hansvancalster fed38c3
avoid NA propagation
hansvancalster File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@hansvancalster this is not the case for the
Nematoda - 18s - asv
data from ILVO, since that is an unusual case see #32 (comment)and in general, I realize this can differ per
primerset
(primers that target more than one group vs group-specific), andsample
(for some samples total read count across everything a primer captures is zero, in which case I think we should assume the eDNA pipeline in the lab failed). I will open an issue for this and investigate per primersetThere was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for documenting this in an issue. One quick question: could a total read count for a sample be zero because it is completely denuded of everything the primer targets? I'm thinking of pesticide misuse and other forms of pollutions. If that could be the case, we should be careful in attributing it to a failed eDNA pipeline. Are there ways to know this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good question. I know that many people (e.g. ILVO and the LUCAS project) resequence a sample if it has less than 50K total reads across everything a primer captures, but I have often wondered whether total read count is really random in general? I will continue the discussion in https://github.com/slambrechts/INBO_eDNA_metabarcoding_BODEM/issues/238